Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description locks

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 04:23:54PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> 
> There's at least two problems to solve here:
> 
> 1) "File private locks" is _meaningless_ as a term. Elsewhere
>    (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.network.samba.internals/76414/focus=1685376),

It's indeed not a very good choice, but the new name is even worse.
Just call them non-broken locks? :)  Or not give them a name an just
append a 2 to the fcntls? :)

> 2) The new API constants (F_SETLKP, F_SETLKPW, F_GETLKP) have names
>    that are visually very close to the traditional POSIX lock names 
>    (F_SETLK, F_SETLKW, F_GETLK). That's an accident waiting to happen
>    when someone mistypes in code and/or misses such a misttyping
>    when reading code. That really must be fixed.

I don't think so.  They also should have a name very similar because
they have the same semantics with a major bug fixed.  In fact I can't
think of anyone who would actually want the old behavior.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/